Nice try -- I like your on-the-nose username
As somebody in the industry I have to say Alameda/FTX pushing MAPS was surreal and cannot be explained as good faith investing by a competent team.
As far as I can tell there is no reason to condemn fraud, but not the stuff SBF openly endorsed, except that fraud happened and hit the "bad" outcome. From https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/sam-bankman-fried/COWEN: Okay, but let’s say there’s a game: 51 percent, you double the Earth out somewhere else; 49 percent, it all disappears. Would you play that game? And would you keep on playing that, double or nothing? BANKMAN-FRIED: With one caveat. Let me give the caveat first, just to be a party pooper, which is, I’m assuming these are noninteracting universes. Is that right? Because to the extent they’re in the same universe, then maybe duplicating doesn’t actually double the value because maybe they would have colonized the other one anyway, eventually. COWEN: But holding all that constant, you’re actually getting two Earths, but you’re risking a 49 percent chance of it all disappearing. BANKMAN-FRIED: Again, I feel compelled to say caveats here, like, “How do you really know that’s what’s happening?” Blah, blah, blah, whatever. But that aside, take the pure hypothetical. COWEN: Then you keep on playing the game. So, what’s the chance we’re left with anything? Don’t I just St. Petersburg paradox you into nonexistence? BANKMAN-FRIED: Well, not necessarily. Maybe you St. Petersburg paradox into an enormously valuable existence. That’s the other option.One of my friends literally withdrew everything from FTX after seeing this originally, haha. Pretty sure the EV on whatever scheme occurred was higher than 51/49, so it follows....
I have to say I didn't expect "all remaining assets across ftx empire 'hacked' and apps updated to have malware" as an outcome.
(as an aside it also seems quite unusual to apply this impartiality to the finances of EAs. If EAs were going to be financially impartial it seems like we would not really encourage trying to earn money in competitive financially zero sum ways such as a quant finance career or crypto trading)
Seriously, imagine dedicating your life to EA and then finding out you lost your life savings because one group of EAs defrauded you and the other top EAs decided you shouldn't be alerted about it for as long as possible specifically because it might lead to you reaching safety. Of course none of the in-the-know people decided to put up their own money to defend against bank run, just decided it would be best if you kept doing so.
In that situation I have to say I would just go and never look back.
Aspiring to be impartially altruistic doesn't mean we should shank eachother. The so-impartial-we-will-harvest-your-organs-and-steal-your-money version of EA has no future as a grassroots movement or even room to grow as far as I can tell.
This community norm strategy works if you determine that retaining socioeconomically normal people doesn't actually matter and you just want to incubate billionaires, but I guess we have to hope the next billionare is not so (allegedly) impartial towards their users' welfare.
I would like to be involved in the version of EAs where we look after eachother's basic wellness even if it's bad for FTX or other FTX depositors. I think people will find this version of EA more emotionally safe and inspiring.
To me there is just no normative difference between trying to suppress information and actively telling people they should go deposit on FTX when distress occurred (without communicating any risks involved), knowing that there was a good chance they'd get totally boned if they did so. Under your model this would be no net detriment, but it would also just be sociopathic.
Yes the version of EA where people suppress this information, rather than actively promote deposits, is safer. But both are quite cruel and not something I could earnestly suggest to a friend that they devote their lives to.
What I think: I think that FTX was insolvent such that even if FTT price was steady, user funds were not fully backed. That is, they literally bet the money on a speculative investment and lost it, and this caused a multibillion dollar financial hole. It is also possible that some or all of the assets - liabilities deficit was caused by a hack that happened months ago that they did not report.
As far as I can tell, you don't think this. Well, if you really don't think that, and it turns out you were wrong, then I'd like you to update. I think probabilities are a good way to enforce that, that is my actual good-faith belief. Of course I'm also always looking for profitable trades.
Is there any bet you'd take, that doesn't rely on a legal system (which I agree adds a lot of confounders, not to mention delay), on the above claim? Could we bet on "By April 2023, evidence arises that FTX user funds were not even 95% backed before Binance's FTT selloff?" Or maybe we could bet on Nuno's belief on the backing?
BTW your chart is USDD not USDC. Idk what USDD is.
Also I've now spent like wayyy too much time chatting about this on here. Making a bet would involve further chatting. So FYI the most likely outcome is that I wake up tomorrow and pretend it was all just a dream. Sorry to disappoint and thanks for indulging me a bit in the end.
You're Agrippa! The guy with very short timelines, is Berkeley adjacent and knows that cool DxE person. No, I do care about you! I respect you quite a bit. I was wrong and I retract what I said before in at least a few comments, and I apologize for my behavior. Also, I'll be happy to take any negative repercussions.
You're Agrippa! The guy with very short timelines, is Berkeley adjacent and knows that cool DxE person.
No, I do care about you! I respect you quite a bit. I was wrong and I retract what I said before in at least a few comments, and I apologize for my behavior. Also, I'll be happy to take any negative repercussions.
😳 That's nice of you, thanks.
I'm actually not a guy though I don't take any offense to the assumption, given my username.
Maybe Nuno would escrow for us.
I'm probably down for $500, would need to talk to my partner about going much higher anyway. If you are in the US we might not need escrow since suing eachother is an option, if we went >5k that would be worth it.
Re SBF vs FTX/Alameda paying: Yeah I meant SBF personally. I agree it's a big difference. Jan 1st is the date but I also don't know how fast this stuff ever goes and researching it sounds annoying.
Given that you think it's likely FTX "gambled" user funds I am really not sure we disagree on anything interesting to begin with :-[
Maybe you think it's only 70% likely and I think it's a lot more than that?